Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

A Reprieve for Tavern on the Green

By Glenn Collins October 15, 2009 3:55 pmOctober 15, 2009 3:55 pm

Preventing a mid-December shuttering of Tavern on the Green, a federal judge said Thursday that the landmark restaurant in Central Park — which filed for bankruptcy last month — will be able to remain open during the lucrative Christmas season and accept restaurant and party reservations through New Year’s Eve.

The current operators of the restaurant had threatened to lay off all of its more than 400 employees in December unless its landlord, the Parks Department, permitted it to remain past the expiration of its operating license at midnight on Dec. 31. The operators, the LeRoy family, said they needed additional time to auction and remove fixtures, artwork and furnishings it says are worth more than $8 million.

Judge Allan L. Gropper said from the bench in United States Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan that “I’d like to see the restaurant stay open,” adding that allowing “two weeks to a month” in January would be “a reasonable transition period.”

The city’s Law Department had suggested such an extension on Wednesday, saying in a court filing that it would benefit the restaurant, its creditors and “the visiting public and the city as a whole.”

Keith N. Costa, Tavern’s bankruptcy lawyer, said “we are completely satisfied with the result,” referring to the judge’s statements from the bench.

The future operator of the restaurant, Dean J. Poll, who runs the Boathouse in Central Park, had opposed any extension, saying he was considering closing the restaurant — and letting go of its employees for two years during renovations — if he couldn’t take over the license immediately on Jan. 1. In August, the city awarded him the new 20-year license to operate Tavern.

“The judge made clear that a transition for a very brief time was understandable,” said Barry B. LePatner, Mr. Poll’s lawyer, adding: “We remain confident that we will reach an amicable agreement among all parties so that Mr. Poll’s stewardship of the renovated facility can begin as soon as possible.”

John Turchiano, a spokesman for the New York Hotel Trades Council, which represents the restaurant’s workers, said that “we are delighted with this turn of events, which insures that anyone wishing to visit Tavern on the Green before the end of the year will be accommodated.”

On Monday Tavern on the Green Limited Partnership, the current operating company, asked for a temporary restraining order in bankruptcy court to enable management to occupy the restaurant for 90 days in the new year, claiming Tavern and its creditors needed time to present, auction and pack up its current artwork and fixtures. In court Thursday a lawyer for Tavern said that Christie’s and Sotheby’s had advised that a three-month period was required.

But in a Wednesday court filing, the city countered that the auction of Tavern’s fixtures need not take three months, since potential buyers could be given a sale catalog of available items and then invited into the restaurant during December to view potential purchases, for a scheduled auction “on a specific date in January, 2010,” the filing said. It added that “there is no reason why the auction or disposition cannot be successfully completed in early to mid-January” and the restaurant vacated “by no later than Jan. 31.”

Judge Gropper also said that he hoped the restaurant would continue to be called Tavern on the Green, though he didn’t rule on the issue. After he took over the license in 1973, Warner LeRoy trademarked the name and through the years his family expended legal fees to defend the trademark, which it says is worth $19 million, and therefore an asset that could appease some of Tavern’s creditors.

But on Friday the city said it will take legal action to own the right to the Tavern trademark. It is expected to argue that a license holder had no right to claim the name Tavern on the Green, which the restaurant has had since 1934 when Robert Moses was the parks commissioner.

Bravo to keeping the city’s landmark restaurant up and running over the holidays…..but here’s a question…..LeRoy went to alot of trouble to trademark that name, and his family to protect it, for all these years. How could it be taken from them?Seems unfair, unethical and possibly, illegal

The Leroy family didn’t valuate the name, that was done by a national appraisal firm that does these sorts of things based on who knows what. However, it is a real appraisal, not some number pulled from the air. they said who earlier this summer, I can’t remember the name of the firm.
If the operators have spent the last three decades protecting the name and have been forced into bankruptcy by NYC, why on earth would they give the name back for nothing? And does the city plan to change the street name back from Warner Leroy Lane? Let’s not forget what Mr. Leroy did to change Central Park and his generosity to charities. I’d liek to see what the current operator’s bid looked like, and why the city is so adverse to the Leroys and so “pro” Mr. Poll.

Mr. LeRoy was the genius who brought the
Tavern On The Green property to what most
New Yorkers would agree was it’s highest and
best use. In doing so he trademarked the name
and the parks commission never opposed.
If the city takes action to claim the name
we all better take a look at the symbols
that our fathers created and protected and
question who might have new rights that
are unimaginable.

Certainly a reasonable compromise, even though the judge’s remark that he would “like to see the restaurant stay open” smells a bit of judicial activism. The point isn’t what he personally would like, but what the law says. And I am not a lawyer, but I find it a bit surprising that the mere fact that one side of a contract is in bankruptcy should have any impact on a clear cut end of contract date underwritten by both sides. I’m curious about how the judge will justify this.

However, it looks as if everybody can live with this agreement, as long as the Polls will get some kind of compensation for the delay. So, this judgment may stand because nobody is very interested in challenging it.

As for the trademark issue, I don’t think that this is an obvious case. With google, I found this interesting information about a apparently similar case in California:
“A concession agreement, which was silent as to ownership or use of trademarks, did not create an implied trademark license between a state parks department and a restaurant operator. (California Department of Parks and Recreation v. Bazaar del Mundo Inc., 9th Cir., No. 05-55828, 5/24/06).” Well, this implies it may be different if the license says that trademarks have to be transferred to the licensor when the concession expires. So, the ownership of the “Tavern on the Green” trademark depends on the wording of that 1985 contract with the Tavern Partnership (or the even older 1973 contract), I guess. The comptroller’s 2003 audit doesn’t say anything about trademarks, but this doesn’t say that there isn’t such a provision in the papers. So, nobody should rush to judgments regarding this.

If we’re talking about “rights” the city certainly has a “right” to TRY to keep the name.. Thats what the legal system is for…
But from what I know and have heard, I don’t believe they are entitled to win this argument.

Warner Leroy and family worked for 30 years to build the business, from the hell hole that was Central Park in 1975.(Does anyone else remember: “Ford to NY: ‘Drop Dead'” in those days? No one wanted to go to the crime ridden Central Park. (The out-of-towners of that era (movie and all) knew to steer clear.

Warner created the Tavern on the Green that is today, which bears little resemblance to the TOG of 1934. and he built and created the name. (Folgers coffee commercials of the 70’s and 80’s helped too)

If the city wanted to protect and own the rights to the name, they should have built that protection in the orgininal license agreement, or the agreement extension and modification that was negotiated and signed in the 80’s.

Thecity shouldn’t be entitled to win this argument after the fact, 30 years later, after all the Leroys did to create, build, and defend the name over the years.

Wow, George, gotta little chip on the ol’ shoulder?
Albert, if you haven’t eaten there, you probably shouldn’t comment on the food. Don’t make me separate you boys!

Commenting on the food at Tavern on the Green is sort of like commenting on the entertainment value of Disney World. Is it worth paying over $100 a day to see Mickcy Mouse ad nauseum and get a $10 smoked turkey leg? Works for some, some would rather die. By the way, the menu at the Boathouse seems to be more expensive then Tavern on the Green.

Warner Leroy (who is dead, by the way, George, so I don’t think he’s trying to do anything but maybe his family is trying to honor their contracts for parties and so on) created Great Adventure, the amusment park in New Jersey. And he created Tavern on the Green precisely to be a “tourist trap” or destination, if you prefer. People come to NYC and eat at Tavern as a thing to do. They also go to shows, spend money in the stores, etc.

No one has ever said anything good about the food at Tavern, a point which bothered Leroy to no end, I think he once took an ad out in one of the papers asking why the critics hated him so much. He was a funny guy!. It serves 3000 people a day, like a Disney World restaurant. If you’r looking for a little private hideaway with undiscoverd deliciousness, Tavern isn’t it. But I think they try there best to serve a lot of people decent food in a completely unique setting.

The setting will be gone (tacky but original and famous to be sure). Do you think Dean Poll will be able to serve better food with less staff to as many people? Is this going to be better for New York (in terms of bringing in the tourists to spend money) or worse? No matter who operates it, the food will never be “great.” Never has been! But if Poll makes it non-union by closing it down, I can almost guarantee what quality there is will suffer, and he’ll be making money hand over fist by charging more for the food,cutting staff and no union dues.. And it will be just another brasserie with bad food and no unique qualties.
Just something to think about.

As a tourist, I have been bragging to people that I get to go to the Tavern this weekend when I hit NYC to celebrate a hodgepodge of milestones with my husband.

So, I googled “what to wear at the tavern” and “what to order” and now my excitement is gone – out the window – and I am now wondering if the locals who are taking us there actually hate us – hahaha.

Personally, I am excited to go “see” the dining rooms that are fabled & which may become lost …. but I sure as hell am afraid to order as I am a bit of a “good food” snob – not to be confused with a foodie.

Took my family to New York for a few days. The low point was Tavern on the Green. Am a retired Marine colonel, have been around the world, and our expectations were not met. Would not recommend our experience to anyone.

I am also a “good food” snob, and I’ve never eaten at Tavern on the Green, but I heard it is the place to visit once in New York. This place is historic, thanks to the help and support of the LeRoy family. Eveybody needs to remember that a place that serves bad food does not stay around for 75 years, so this eattery had to offer something other than bad food and a great setting. Consider these facts as we lose another treasure in this great nation. Also, consider how rules and people change, as times change. Who are these rulings really benefiting? The LeRoy family should have had rights to the space, dispite the contract problems.